2018 (5) TMI 307 - HC - Central Excise

Refund claim - duty paid by appellant twice - absence of documentary evidence - Held that - Without any documentary evidence the appellant is not entitled for the refund claim - The amount is open in financial records as a wrong debit to be received from Excise Department. After entry of this document the assessee has not produced any valid document that bars any unjust enrichment - refund cannot be allowed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Assailing the order of CESTAT, Commissioner of Appeals, and the order in original.
- Reversal of duty payment by the appellant twice.
- Validity of documentary evidence presented by both parties.
- Entitlement of the appellant for a refund claim.
- Unjust enrichment and lack of supporting documents by the appellant.

Assailing Orders:
The appellant challenged the orders of CESTAT, Commissioner of Appeals, and the original order. The appellant argued that the authorities erroneously concluded that the duty payment was not reversed twice. The appellant presented documents such as the triplicate copy of the Cenvat register and Input Cenvat Register to support their claim of double reversal. However, the office of the respondent discarded these documents, leading to a dispute.

Reversal of Duty Payment:
The appellant claimed to have paid the duty twice, supported by documentary evidence like the triplicate copies of the Cenvat register and Input Cenvat Register. On the other hand, the respondent argued that it was a case of review and not double payment. The Chartered Accountant's Certificate highlighted an open amount in the financial records as a wrong debit, which was not reflected in the balance sheet.

Validity of Documentary Evidence:
The authorities requested all relevant documents for inspection and verification. Despite producing some documents during the hearing, the appellant failed to substantiate the claim of double reversal with conclusive documentary evidence. The Range Superintendent confirmed the second reversal but did not provide details of the first reversal. The Commissioner of Appeals noted the lack of conclusive proof for the double reversal.

Entitlement for Refund Claim:
The appellant's lack of documentary evidence supporting the double reversal led to the rejection of the refund claim. The amount remained open in the financial records as a wrong debit, indicating a need for reimbursement from the Excise Department. The appellant's failure to provide valid documents hindered the claim for refund.

Unjust Enrichment and Lack of Supporting Documents:
The authorities concluded that the appellant did not meet the requirements for a refund claim due to the absence of supporting documents. Despite producing some documents during the process, the appellant failed to provide substantial evidence to prove the double reversal of duty payment. The lack of valid documentation and failure to demonstrate processing loss through supporting documents further weakened the appellant's case.

In the end, the court upheld the authorities' decision, stating that a plausible conclusion was reached based on the available evidence. The dismissal of the first appeal was justified, with no costs imposed. The judgment highlighted the importance of providing conclusive documentary evidence to support claims in such cases to avoid unjust enrichment and ensure transparency in financial transactions.